17-04-2003 20:09									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Sure, I admitted it was laughable, but people keep mentioning the benefits of western culture as if the colonizers actually cared to transmit these things. The British did a fair job of teaching natives about a brand new way of looking at warfare, showed them the perfect example of oppressive government, methods of brutality that rivalled the native culture's if not surpassed. I still don't see the British systematically transmitting the humanitarian or educational merits of western society to all of the native cultures they colonized. You say that colonization did this quicker then more peaceful means would have but what has it done? In most cases the British ruled for centuries and it can't be clearly said that in most cases they left the natives better off then when they came.

As you said yourself, the local ways of governing of the colonized people were often quite a match to the worst of the colonizers. This goes even with comparison to the Spaniards.

But imperialism and colonialism brought you lots of technological developements that wouldn't exist without the US ( which is a product of colonialism ), as well as introduced crops to the old world that enabled it's population to grow immensly.

I'd say that it was a mixed blessing.

	17-04-2003 20:11									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

azazel, dont you realize nobody wants grey answers, they only want black and white.

	17-04-2003 20:21									#153
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel But imperialism and colonialism brought you lots of technological developements that wouldn't exist without the US ( which is a product of colonialism ), as well as introduced crops to the old world that enabled it's population to grow immensly. I'd say that it was a mixed blessing.

This is a weird arguement since the technological advancements made in America didn't happen because of colonialism or because there were a bunch of europeans in America. Its equally possible that they could have happened in Europe.

	17-04-2003 20:30									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Bengal was an extremely rich area prior to British colonization, certainly one of the richest areas in the world. Clive considered Dhaka comparable to London. The region had very advanced industry for the day, in terms of textiles as well as shipbuilding and metalworking. The region produced high quality cotton. bullshit.

Civilizations collapse from within, not from outside forces, (normally, the Boer war is an exception)
if they were so rich, educated and prosperous they would have spent a couple of coppers on guns
and been organized enough to defend themselves.
It was the beening not organized that usually was fatal.
Stagant 14th century societies don't usually survive contact with 18th century ones. Romantic paradises
these places were not, so cut the noble savage bullshit.

	17-04-2003 20:36									#155
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: This is a weird arguement since the technological advancements made in America didn't happen because of colonialism or because there were a bunch of europeans in America. Its equally possible that they could have happened in Europe.

Not it isn't. Colonialism pushed the european economies a lot, even though it was done through the inneficient economy of mercantilism ( or completely wasted, in the case of Spain. should've kept them jews. Stoopid. ). It was one of the enabling factors of the advancement of philosophical thinking, science, and technology.

Also, the sheer increase in human population is a very hefty plus.

	17-04-2003 20:40									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger However, without the Brits, I'd say the India subcontinent would remain one whole country instead of splintered into a few.

I strongly disagree. Before the British began scarfing up the subcontinent India was divided into continually warrring petty states. The last of the great Moghul emporers, Aurangzeb, had doomed his empire to split apart by instituting a host of policies that discriminated against the Hindus. Moderate Muslim princes deserted the empire, and rebel Hindu states gradually gained in power.

The British didn't divide and conquer India, it was already divided and ripe for conquest, In fact native princes eagerly assisted the British for just such a reason. Modern historians consider the Plessey as the decisive battle between the British and the French. It was this battle that decided which power would dominate India. The reason the British won however was because both Hindu and Muslim alike feared the intrusion of crusading Christianity into their terrirtory. The night prior to the battle a British general promised the native allies of the french that the British would never send missionaries into their domains. The next day the majrity of the native troops allied with the French refused to fight and the french were utterly defeated. The British won India because native rulers thought them to be the lesser of two evils.

Finally, you have to realize that the nation of India is largely a British invention. In its 4000 year history prior to British domination India was unified for a total of only about 100 years. Prior to British rule there was no linguiistic unity either. Modern Indians like to point out that the majority of the inhabitants of India speak Hindi, or dialects that are more closely related than Spanish and Portugese. They fail to take into account that in the 19th century the British encouraged linguistic unity both by requiring that native documents be written in Hindi, and by actually re-writing the dialects of the subcontinent to make them more compatible.

	17-04-2003 20:45									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 The same thing with Israel or Palestine as it was. The British ruled with the optimism that they could do no wrong and somewhat good intentions, but when it seemed that there was no good solution to the mess they made they booked and let the cards fall where they may. This is a perfect example of the 'benefits' of British colonization.

Palestine fell into their hands as a result of WW1, not by
an evil imperial plot. They never wanted it. The Jews and
Arabs were already there, fighting away as they have for time immerorial,why would they spent British lives and treasure on the thankless and profitless task of chasing down terrorists like Begin for a worthless strip of sand and rock.

	17-04-2003 20:48									#158
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

One could summarize this thread in terms of the omlette. It was made, but a few eggs were broken in the process.

Just a couple of points: I don't recall any time in recorded history where India was united under one rule. The Brits got very close. The result was a vast commonwealth from Afghanistan to Thailand. This certainly was better for everyone within its borders when compared to what preceded it. This commonwealth was comparable the Roman Empire which brought to the people of the Empire a vast commonwealth stretching from Hadrian's wall in Britannia to Parthia.

The ability to trade across vast distances without substantial risk of piracy coupled with the absence of war inside the borders of the commonwealth by itself allowed civilization to advance at a rapid pace.

	17-04-2003 20:50									#159
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Palestine fell into their hands as a result of WW1, not by an evil imperial plot. They never wanted it. The Jews and Arabs were already there, fighting away as they have for time immerorial,why would they spent British lives and treasure on the thankless and profitless task of chasing down terrorists like Begin for a worthless strip of sand and rock.

Now I know you don't know anything about history of this place. The first violent clash between Jews and arabs occured in the 20s. The brits were there already.

They may have not wanted this place for more than a connection between two very important regions ( Egypt, and the Gulf Region), but saying that they were forced to take it, or something similar, is ... strange.

	17-04-2003 20:57									#160
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: One could summarize this thread in terms of the omlette. It was made, but a few eggs were broken in the process.

Less pinkcoloured glasses please.

lots of bad things happened. But overall, the result was positive. We, all humanity, should learn about all of it's consequences.

	17-04-2003 21:02									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Heh, watch 'Lawrence of Arabia'...there is a lot of truth in that movie about the Anglo-French wheeling dealing in 1914-19....

Although one should note that Zionist immigrants had been going to whatever the Ottomans called the 'holy' land since the 1870s, there were already a lot of dedicated jewish colonists who had been there for decades, as ned said generally fighting over some scrub desert.

There would have been Israeli-Palestinian fighting regardless.

	17-04-2003 21:06									#162
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Civilizations collapse from within, not from outside forces, (normally, the Boer war is an exception)

That's an absurd generalization. Are you saying that it's impossible for one region to impoverish another?

In this specific circumstance, British trade barriers de-industrialized India. That's the nature of imperialism between industrialized regions.

quote: if they were so rich, educated and prosperous they would have spent a couple of coppers on guns and been organized enough to defend themselves.

Rome was conquered by uncivilized Germanics. China was conquered by uncivilized Mongols and later Manchus, etc., etc. Economic prosperity doesn't determine military success. BTW, Bengal was under the rule of the Mughal Empire prior to British conquest; another example of lowtech conquering hightech.

There are a number of reasons why the Brits were able to conquer Bengal - the Mughal authority in Delhi was practically impotent, the provincial governor of Bengal was hated by Bengalis, the Brits were far more seasoned at war, etc.

quote: It was the beening not organized that usually was fatal.

Yes, the instabilities of Indian politics guaranteed British conquest. I never said otherwise.

quote: Stagant 14th century societies don't usually survive contact with 18th century ones.

It wasn't a stagnant 14th century society. Again, it was comparable to England in the 18th century. It was an industrialized, prosperous society by the standards of the day.

quote: Romantic paradises these places were not, so cut the noble savage bullshit.

I never said Bengal was a "romantic paradise" or that Bengalis were "noble savages." I said that prior to British conquest, Bengal was economically comparable to England. And British rule changed that.

	17-04-2003 21:08									#163
	Increase the size of your Attachments

True, that.

A very imprortant thing is to differentiate between the Semi-nomadic arabs, and the sedementary arabs. Lawrence of Arabia dealt with the former, while the jewish-arab conflict is the later.

	17-04-2003 21:13									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ozz, I do not claim to have a complete picture of the relationship between the Jews and the Arabs/Muslims, but for most of history, the relationship was very good. The Jews actively cooperated with the Arabs in their "liberation" of Jerusalem in 632. As the Arab conquered West through Roman territories in Africa, the Jews again cooperated. The Berbers were Jewish or had a substantial Jewish population when they surrendered in the late 600's. They converted in name only. Next the Jews of Hispannia called for help from the Berbers when the Goths began forcing them to convert or die. As a result, the Jews cooperated with the Berber/Arab invasion of the early 700's.

In recognition of the Jewish/Arab alliance, the Arabs allowed the Jews to practice their faith openly and granted them special privileges. The result was a golden age of learning and scientific advancement in Arabia.

I believe the relationship between the Jews and the Arabs remained cordial and mutually supportive until 1920. The Arabs had been promised Palestine as a part of the deal with the Brits to revolt against the Turks. When the Brits renegged on that deal and took over Palestine - and the French took over Damascus and kicked Faisal off the throne of Syria - which included Palestine - Faisal and the Arabs of Palestine revolted against the British Mandate. The revolt extended to the Jews living in Palestine at that time.

Last edited by Ned on 18-04-2003 at 10:43

	17-04-2003 21:17									#165
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned Just a couple of points: I don't recall any time in recorded history where India was united under one rule. The Brits got very close. The result was a vast commonwealth from Afghanistan to Thailand. This certainly was better for everyone within its borders when compared to what preceded it. This commonwealth was comparable the Roman Empire which brought to the people of the Empire a vast commonwealth stretching from Hadrian's wall in Britannia to Parthia.

India was never as large as it was under British rule, but then the British even incorporated Burma into India for awhile. Asoka's empire incorporated the Indus valley, the Gangeitic valley, the central plains and a large part of southern India, and so in my opinion could be considered a unified India. His empire fell apart within a generation. Two other dynasties, including ther Moghuls, prior to British rule managed to nearly achieve this feat. None of them managed to hold on to even three of the four zones (Indus, Ganges, Central, South) for more then one or two generations.

	17-04-2003 21:19									#166
	Got spare money?

hee...sedimentary Arabs must grow in the desert, over thousands of years?....sorry, I'm an English instructor.

Yes, the action, etc deal with the bedouin, but I'm thinking more of the sequences dealing with General Allenby and his discussions of what to do with the Arabs while in Damascus.

If you've seen the movie, you'll note that David Lean puts some words into the Saudis' mouth when he says 'we are fighting for Damascus' (i.e. a unified Arab state).

The point is that the Arabs revolted from the Ottomans because they wanted an independant Arab state, which was promised to them in non-binding gentlemans agreement terms, which they were unsophistcated enough to believe. When the war was over, witness the fate of the Arab delegation at Versailles....

The Brits wanted what we have today: crappy little arab states with crappy little despots to extract resources from. The Arabs wanted (in 1918) what Nasser wanted: a united Arab state. IMO.

	17-04-2003 21:24									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The absence of colonialism does not presuppose the absence of long distance trade and competition. Europe could have developed faster if instead of using trade revenues to build and maintain overseas empires and fund the many wars needed to keep them they focused on progress within their own countries, who knows.

I just think coming to the conclusion that we're better off because of a horrible system like colonialism is sort of like explaining away the holocaust. It happened, there's no changing it, but please don't start saying it was all for the best, we have no idea what could have taken its place.

	18-04-2003 01:25									#168
	Suffering from ads?

the idea that "u have no idea wut could have taken place" is hardly justification for saying it wasn't beneficial. even given ur moral gripes. which are perfectly valid.

	18-04-2003 01:40									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: The absence of colonialism does not presuppose the absence of long distance trade and competition. Europe could have developed faster if instead of using trade revenues to build and maintain overseas empires and fund the many wars needed to keep them they focused on progress within their own countries, who knows.

That may be correct to some extent with the Old world, but it certainly is not the case with the new world. In any case, the discussion here is not whether things could be done better. Of course lots of terrible things were done, but you don't actually expect people of that era to not fight and not conquer, if they have the power to. The question here is whether the good surpassed the bad. I say yes.

quote: I just think coming to the conclusion that we're better off because of a horrible system like colonialism is sort of like explaining away the holocaust. It happened, there's no changing it, but please don't start saying it was all for the best, we have no idea what could have taken its place.

What good did the holocaust bring to the world? The Empirial Era's consequences are numerous, many of them good, and many of them bad. I think that the good things surpass the bad things to some extent.

	18-04-2003 01:40									#170
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: the idea that "u have no idea wut could have taken place" is hardly justification for saying it wasn't beneficial. even given ur moral gripes. which are perfectly valid.

Neither is "look what happened, must be a benefit of colonialism".

	18-04-2003 02:00									#171
	Put an end to popups!

The British openly supported Jewish immigration at first and promised the "Jewish national home" then later on their policy towards Jewish immigration became muddled, officially limiting it with little effect because many individual Brits were sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Its hard to imagine zionism being so strong today without that initial British alliance, however when they left the British threw up their hands knowing the Jews and Arabs would fight it out and probably believing the Arabs would win.

If British administration hadn't been so muddled the ME would be a different place today.

	18-04-2003 02:10									#172
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The British openly supported Jewish immigration at first and promised the "Jewish national home" then later on their policy towards Jewish immigration became muddled, officially limiting it with little effect because many individual Brits were sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Its hard to imagine zionism being so strong today without that initial British alliance, however when they left the British threw up their hands knowing the Jews and Arabs would fight it out and probably believing the Arabs would win.

The brits severly hampered jewish immigration for the most part of the British rule. Also, it is improtant to remember that British rule came instead of another rule, the one of the Turks. After the fall of the Ottomans, and their replacement by my avatar, the way things would've been solved is a big question mark. If things would've continued similarly to the way they did before British rule, I think that Zionism would've had it easier, since the situation before the British rule was close to a state of lawlessness. Jewish immigration wouldn't face any obstacles, and a larger portion of jews of europe would've arrived to this land. Also, without more than half of palestine "dissappearing" under the rule of Abdullah the 1st, the pie we have to share today would've been much larger, and a more peaceful solution would've been possible.

	18-04-2003 02:24									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

UR:

quote: Malaysia isn't doing bad, but I won't call it thriving. India has a lot to do, unfortuately its leaders have been obsessed with the dreams of a regional empire, thus pouring money into military intead of other more fundamental needs.

Compare with Indonesia? I'd say they are in much better shape.

quote: As for Hong Kong and Singapore, they became prosperous not because of any British goodwill or planning, but were a result of fortuitous events, geographical location, and some solid long term planning in the case of Singapore.

Who designed the city of Singapore? The Brits.
I'm not foolish enough to admit that all the credit goes to the British for the success of Singapore, but you have to admit that they did a good job.

	18-04-2003 02:33									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Is there any culture on earth that can overcome ingreasing luxury rate and knowledge? I mean, when people get money, and education, they become selfish "bastards". Don't blame the western culture if the people are just human. But that's just quickly thinking, is there something I am missing?

i'm sure there are, had the shock of both western ideals not arrived at roughly the same time.
however, we'll never know, because all over the world, those ideals did arrive at the same time.

	18-04-2003 02:40									#175
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Azazel The brits severly hampered jewish immigration for the most part of the British rule. Also, it is improtant to remember that British rule came instead of another rule, the one of the Turks. After the fall of the Ottomans, and their replacement by my avatar, the way things would've been solved is a big question mark. If things would've continued similarly to the way they did before British rule, I think that Zionism would've had it easier, since the situation before the British rule was close to a state of lawlessness. Jewish immigration wouldn't face any obstacles, and a larger portion of jews of europe would've arrived to this land. Also, without more than half of palestine "dissappearing" under the rule of Abdullah the 1st, the pie we have to share today would've been much larger, and a more peaceful solution would've been possible.

The British did a very poor job of hampering Jewish immigration, considering many British officers were unwilling to crack down it. Plus post-WW2 and before 1948 massive numbers were allowed in regardless.

Under the Ottomans or the Turks its ridiculous to imagine immigration high enough for a Jewish state to be formed since once the arab palestinians began to protest the leaders would have found it difficult to ignore muslim interests. Plus, they would have never allowed a quasi-Jewish government to be formed and worked closely with it as the British did until 1948.

Anyway, I'm not making value judgements on the British support for Palestinians or Jews, simply saying when they packed up they left a God-awful mess as a result of their muddled palestinian policies.

	18-04-2003 08:46									#176
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Now I know you don't know anything about history of this place. The first violent clash between Jews and arabs occured in the 20s. The brits were there already. They may have not wanted this place for more than a connection between two very important regions ( Egypt, and the Gulf Region), but saying that they were forced to take it, or something similar, is ... strange.

You don't know squat, try reading something besides
Romantic jewish propaganda comics. The Clashs (more
like riots) were because of Jewish immigration. That
wouldn't have happened under the Turks. If the Jews or Arabs acted up under the Turks, the Turks would have had their nuts for door knockers.

Started fighting in the 20s, more like 20 BC. The Jews
always fought with their neighbours, the Greeks or the
Arabs (or whatever tribes the Arabs were called then)
right up to the present day.

Strange, No it just fell into their hands, Nobody else
had any use for it, knowing it would be more trouble
than it was worth.

	18-04-2003 09:08									#177
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ned The Arabs had been promised Palestine as a part of the deal with the Brits to revolt against the Turks. When the Brits renegged on that deal and took over Palestine - and the French took over Damascus and kicked Faisal off the thrown of Syria - which included Palestine - Faisal and the Arabs of Palestine revolted against the British Mandate. The revolt extended to the Jews living in Palestine at that time.

Minorities usally co-operate with majorites.

Good post BTW, The british had no power to promise
the Arabs anything but their good will. The French and
later, Italians would have to agree. For harassing a
railroad line and supplying some irregular light cavalry
the arabs were to recieve syria, palestine, Jorden, and
Saudi arabia? Sounds a bit too good to be true, don't
it?

	18-04-2003 09:16									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: BTW, Bengal was under the rule of the Mughal Empire prior to British conquest; another example of lowtech conquering hightech.

You know that is bull. The Brits were in NO way 'lowtech' compared to Bengal. I'm talking about non-military tech, btw.

	18-04-2003 09:17									#179
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Rome was conquered by uncivilized Germanics. China was conquered by uncivilized Mongols and later Manchus, etc., etc. Economic prosperity doesn't determine military success. BTW, Bengal was under the rule of the Mughal Empire prior to British conquest; another example of lowtech conquering hightech. I never said Bengal was a "romantic paradise" or that Bengalis were "noble savages." I said that prior to British conquest, Bengal was economically comparable to England. And British rule changed that.

Rome collapsed to corruption, plague, military rule and economic stagation. Same with China, lowtech does'nt conquer hightech unless hightech becomes a total
basketcase.

If Bengal was economically comparable to England. They
wouldn't have been conquered, they would have conquered India themselves [/QUOTE]

	18-04-2003 10:49									#180
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Just a small point. The real reason the Brits kept Palestine and backstabbed Hussein was .... OIL! Yes OIL.

They wanted to build a pipeline from Iraq to Haiffa. They set up their mandates and zones of influence to control the entire distance from the Iraqi oil fields to Palestine.

Well they built their pipeline. It was closed in 1947. The Israeli's are now talking with the Jordanian about reopening that pipeline.